looking for feedback on symantec client security

  • Thread starter Thread starter gs
  • Start date Start date
G

gs

any has one installed and tried Symantec latest client security. how does
teh ccapp behave regard to consumption of CPU? especially how much CPU does
it use on P3 2.4 GHz when the PC is rebooted remotely and login via remote
desktop

For the older version of client security, on single CPU PC that doesn't have
hyperthread, the CPU consumption skyrockets to about 99 %. On hyperhead or
dual core it may consume only about 50 to 60%


we are contemplating to upgrade or get something else

your feed back is much appreciated
 
gs said:
any has one installed and tried Symantec latest client security. how does
teh ccapp behave regard to consumption of CPU? especially how much CPU does
it use on P3 2.4 GHz when the PC is rebooted remotely and login via remote
desktop
Click to expand...

Any
How
Especially
 
gs said:
any has one installed and tried Symantec latest client security. how does
teh ccapp behave regard to consumption of CPU? especially
how much CPU does it use on P3 2.4 GHz when the PC is rebooted
remotely and login via remote desktop

For the older version of client security, on single CPU PC that
doesn't have hyperthread, the CPU consumption skyrockets to about
99 %. On hyperhead or dual core it may consume only about 50 to
60%
we are contemplating to upgrade or get something else

your feed back is much appreciated
Click to expand...

I have no idea why your CPU utilization is so high in the situation you give
*unless* you left the default startup scan in place (even then - I could not
repeat it)? That thing - in my opinion - is a ridiculous idea. Generally
my customers like to come in, turn on their computers and begin working.
However, if that scan is in place - they *will* notice the lag. I always
turn that off. I have the machines set to do a full scan once per week -
usually on a day when I have the machines coming on for maintenance anyway
in the BIOS and I doubt anyone will be there to care a full scan is
happening (5AM on a Saturday morning?)

On the machines I checked, the memory usages for ccapp.exe was betwwn 9 and
11MB at all times. I didn't see a change in its CPU usage by
rebooting/starting a manual scan, live update, etc... It stayed at 0%.
Remotely or locally. Other executables associated with Symantec AV did
increase significantly - using 20-60% of the processor dependant on what I
was having it do. ccapp.exe was pretty rock-stable in memory usage. One
machine I rebooted and tested and watched - it always used 10,900K.

This is Symantec Client program version 10.1.5.5000 with scan engine
61.3.0.18.
Just AV of course.
 
btw the ccapp version is 2.2.0577, what is yours?
Shenan Stanley said:
I have no idea why your CPU utilization is so high in the situation you
give *unless* you left the default startup scan in place (even then - I
could not repeat it)? That thing - in my opinion - is a ridiculous idea.
Generally my customers like to come in, turn on their computers and begin
working. However, if that scan is in place - they *will* notice the lag.
I always turn that off. I have the machines set to do a full scan once
per week - usually on a day when I have the machines coming on for
maintenance anyway in the BIOS and I doubt anyone will be there to care a
full scan is happening (5AM on a Saturday morning?)

On the machines I checked, the memory usages for ccapp.exe was betwwn 9
and 11MB at all times. I didn't see a change in its CPU usage by
rebooting/starting a manual scan, live update, etc... It stayed at 0%.
Remotely or locally. Other executables associated with Symantec AV did
increase significantly - using 20-60% of the processor dependant on what I
was having it do. ccapp.exe was pretty rock-stable in memory usage. One
machine I rebooted and tested and watched - it always used 10,900K.

This is Symantec Client program version 10.1.5.5000 with scan engine
61.3.0.18.
Just AV of course.
Click to expand...
 
There is a known issue that generates this behavior. Do some searching on
Symantec Site. I can't think of it at the moment. I experienced this a year
ago on 10.0 but I am now on the same ver Shenan.

If I still have my notes I will post back tomorrow what the issue was so you
can see if it is similar to your situation.
 
its a LITTLE handy if you include the original text in your reply.



(e-mail address removed)



There is a known issue that generates this behavior. Do some searching on
Symantec Site. I can't think of it at the moment. I experienced this a year
ago on 10.0 but I am now on the same ver Shenan.

If I still have my notes I will post back tomorrow what the issue was so you
can see if it is similar to your situation.
 
There is a known issue that generates this behavior. Do some searching on
Symantec Site. I can't think of it at the moment. I experienced this a
year
ago on 10.0 but I am now on the same ver Shenan.

If I still have my notes I will post back tomorrow what the issue was so
you
can see if it is similar to your situation.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You posted as a reply to an existing thread,
but changed the subject, and you didn't quote any of the previous message to
which you reply so you're message is totally out of context. You're talking
to yourself.
 
Back
Top